International development, economics, politics, and policy

Main menu

Post navigation

Power vacuums and violence

16Jun2010

Why do some nationalist movements turn to violence while others maintain peaceful struggle and protest?

There are multiple triggers that can upset the existing balance of power within a movement and prompt competition among nationalist actors. The death of prominent nationalist leaders, or the co-optation of some nationalist leaders, or the repression of nationalist leadership are among the mechanisms that can fragment a nationalist movement and prompt in-fighting.

…the removal of the existing leadership exacerbates competition between those who favor violence and those who oppose it. Prior to leadership decapitation, actors who wished to use violence may be constrained by the existing nationalist leadership.

While other nationalists may continue to denounce violence, the absence of the most influential leaders emboldens those who wish to adopt violent tactics and use violence to become the new voice of the movement, potentially drowning out the advocates of peaceful protest.

All else being equal, once leaders are gone, those who prefer violence are less constrained; they even have a ready justification since they can cite the repression of the leadership as a provocation.

That is Adria Lawrence in a new paper that sees nationalist violence in power vacuums.

She looks at wars of decolonization in north Africa, but it makes you wonder whether drone attacks to decapitate movements is always and everywhere such a wise strategy.

Share:

Of course, the game and predictability of outcomes gets more complicated if the other side also pursues targeted assassinations- isn’t that the media’s representation of Taliban strategy? Wasn’t that the strategy behind killing Benazir Bhutto? So the question could also be phrased:
Why does imperial resistance to nationalist movements turn to violence while others maintain peaceful efforts at inclusion and development?

I’m an Associate Professor of Political Science & International and Public Affairs at Columbia University. I use field work and statistics to study poverty, political engagement, the causes and consequences of violence, and policy in developing countries. [Read more]